Paradoxes and Dilemmas

Umm, can we talk about...physics? Thanks.

I'm curious about the other two main components of SR besides time variations: i.e., shortening of lengths and tendency of mass toward infinity as light speed is approached. In the particle accelerator experiments, e.g., do increases in mass as particles approach the speed of light agree with SR theory? And is shortening of the particle observed? Do these two SR components have their counterparts in LR, and do experimental data from cyclotrons or other accelerators conform better to LR than SR in length and mass measurements?

Getting back to the question of FTL measurements: if it is possible to build sun-pumped lasers, might it not also be possible to design some sort of gravity amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, or gaser, through feedback loops between the sun's FTL (gravitational force changes) energy and a gravimeter (or other device, perhaps as yet uninvented)?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>In the particle accelerator experiments, e.g., do increases in mass as particles approach the speed of light agree with SR theory?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is one of several ways in which SR has been "reinterpreted" over the years as new experimental results come in. SR has been becoming more like LR in the process.

Originally, SR held that particle masses increased by the gamma factor as particle speeds increased. This readily explained why particle inertia seemed to increase with speed, but got into trouble when applied to gravitational masses, which are not seen to increase with relative speed.

So in the mid-1980s, we saw a gradual changeover to the current understanding that it is not classical mass that increases with speed, but rather momentum. Relativistic momentum is gamma * m * v. To clarify what this means physically, the notation "rest mass" was introduced as an invariant, and "relativistic mass" was introduced for the product gamma * m. Rest mass does not change with speed, because a mass increases neither the number of atomic particles within itself nor the masses of those atomic particles.

But relativistic mass does increase with speed, meaning nothing more than that relativistic momentum must include the factor gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). And with this modified understanding, SR agrees with LR and with all experiments in regard to the properties of "mass".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>And is shortening of the particle observed?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Time and length are no longer independent units. The fundamental unit of length is defined in terms of the distance traveled by light in vacuo in a certain interval of time. So when the gamma factor is significant, measurements of both time and length are affected in an analogous way. Moreover, in SR, time will vary along the length of a body (as viewed from another frame), making it impossible to measure the location of both ends "simultaneously" to determine the "length". So it becomes a matter of definition whether a body's length is contracted or not. As a consequence, no experiment has ever detected "length contraction" independently of "time dilation".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Do these two SR components have their counterparts in LR, and do experimental data from cyclotrons or other accelerators conform better to LR than SR in length and mass measurements?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The differences between LR and SR are interpretational, not quantitative, because the math of both models is identical. So there is no issue of "better" or "worse", but only issues of whether predicted effects exist at all.

Presently, it is generally agreed that LR and SR make identical predictions of all phenomena in the lightspeed or slower domain. Only the finding of a genuine FTL phenomenon occurring in forward time can falsify SR in favor of LR. The papers I cited present evidence that gravity is an example that satisfies this requirement.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Getting back to the question of FTL measurements: if it is possible to build sun-pumped lasers, might it not also be possible to design some sort of gravity amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, or gaser, through feedback loops between the sun's FTL (gravitational force changes) energy and a gravimeter (or other device, perhaps as yet uninvented)?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That sounds like an interesting suggestion. I am unfamiliar with the details of lasers, so cannot readily address what a gravitational analog might consist of. But I strongly suspect that the wave nature of light plays a role. However, "gravitons" are apparently pure particles with no wave properties. That might prevent inventing a "gaser". But it wouldn't prevent creating ultra-dense matter states that could serve as "sails" in a graviton wind able to produce special gravitational phenomena. -|Tom|-

I just want to thank every member here for a dang good board, and wish you a happy new year!

There are a lot of issues here.It is too bad that so much bitchyness is getting in the way. Makis has a good point or maybe more than one. The point I'm trying to make is also lost in the maylay. How about a timeout being called and restart with just the facts and data.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Getting back to the question of FTL measurements: if it is possible to build sun-pumped lasers, might it not also be possible to design some sort of gravity amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, or gaser, through feedback loops between the sun's FTL (gravitational force changes) energy and a gravimeter (or other device, perhaps as yet uninvented)?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
That sounds like an interesting suggestion. I am unfamiliar with the details of lasers, so cannot readily address what a gravitational analog might consist of. But I strongly suspect that the wave nature of light plays a role. However, "gravitons" are apparently pure particles with no wave properties. That might prevent inventing a "gaser". But it wouldn't prevent creating ultra-dense matter states that could serve as "sails" in a graviton wind able to produce special gravitational phenomena. -|Tom|-<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Lasers depend on the ability of a given amount of mass to produce different amounts of light under different conditions. In particular, electrons within the mass are encouraged to absorb energy under one set of conditiions and then release it under another set of conditions. These process can be intermittent or continuous, and can occur sequentially or simultaneously.

I don't think we know enough about gravity yet to know whether an analogous set of processes can exist. But...



If gravity is in fact caused by something like the LeSage model then gravitons are not created by mass and therefore their creation rate can't be changed by any sort of manipulation of mass.

But it might be possible to alter the rate at which gravitons are absorbed and/or reflected by matter. So instead of "Gravity Amplification by Stimulated Emmission of Radiation" (GASER) we might be able to do "Gravity Attenuation by Stimulated Absorption/Reflection of Gravitons" (GASA/RG"). ...? yuck

This would be especially useful if it could somehow be made <b>directional</b>.

If some of Dr. Van Flandern's recent speculations about planetary explosion mechanisms are correct, the ability to increase a mass's gravitational attenuation factor could be sort of dangerous. Especially if done on a large scale.

Maybe this is the answer to the Fermi Paradox? If intelligent, technically sophisticated creatures tend to discover how to do this and inadvertently blow up their home world before they are safely established elsewhere, we know why no one has contacted us yet.

We can, however, modulate a gravitational acceleration field. Just move a mass around. Gravimeters can measure the difference between someone in the lab standing "right here" versus standing "over there". Even if a wall is between them.

If we define these two different readings as zero and one respectively a message can be sent through solid walls and/or faraday cages.

But gravimeters take a long time to make a measurement - a second or more, I believe (anyone know for sure?). So this experiment couldn't tell the difference between gravity moving at 100 meters/sec and gravity moving at 10^100 meters/sec. And it would take a long time to send even a short message.

But its a start ...

Regards,
LB

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(From Jeremy)
Mr. Einstein did NOT say it. I think its great that you like to theorize about things but I find that your NOTHING theory is one of the most muddled conceptions I have ever run into, which is precisely why I did not enter the fray on it. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Jeremy, perhaps you would like to listen to Mr. Einstein say it in his own words. Click the link, listen, then tell us how it is that you know more then Einstein. www.aip.org/history/einstein/voice1.htm

Now, after you prove that Einstien was not talking about c^2 as <b>"the square of the velocity of light"</b> then perhaps you can try and find one inaccurate statement in the "Nothing Thread".
Actually Jeremy, <b>I CHALLENGE YOU</b> to find one single fault in the "ZERO Theory" thread. It sure is interesting that you are so wise to be able to condemn Eistein and also be able to just discredit others after only reading a quarter of the information. You might actually find the last quarter the most interesting. Until you can disprove what has been stated as proofs the burden is upon you to prove them incorrect. I will leave you with another quote from Mr. Einstein:
"...mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- <b>a somewhat unfamilar conception for the average mind.</b>".<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>



No one (here) has ever objected to refering to "c^2" as the "velocity of light squared", or as (equivalently) "the square of the velocity of light".

That is exactly what "c^2" is.

But C^2 is not a <b>velocity</b>, as some have alleged, because it has the wrong units to be a velocity.

And of course, Albert Einstein never said it was a velocity. Perhaps you were thinking of his step-cousin, Cowperthwait Einstein, who often made such mistakes

(You missed a piece of egg ...)

Regards,
LB